At Dembski's latest Buy My Book thread, the poor puppet's following comment was not allowed to see the light of day. Or whatever passes for light of day at UD:

Quote

Dr. Dembski,

Congratulations on the success of your new testament, and I am looking forward to re-reading long passages, as I am sure they will quoted at length soon by bornagain77, and Gordon Mulllings in future posts.

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack, you can say pretty much what you want. We have no interest in censoring viewpoints, because we believe ID is true and consequently in any full and fair debate we will win ó and if we donít win we either need to learn to debate better or change our position.

Or, just ban you.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Here‚Äôs a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

I see them banning the kid from the dinner table/room/house if they ask uncomfortable questions. Then they keep talking to their wives and pretend the kid is still there but doesn't have anything to say.

--------------"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

Dr. Dembski, it certainly is a pity you are forced to grab at the coattails of tin-foil-hat wearing AGW deniers in a convoluted attempt to show how ĎBig Scienceí is holding back ID. The enemy of your enemy is your friend I suppose. But is it really worth flushing the remaining bit of your scientific integrity down the loo to try and score cheap points for the frankly flat-lining ID hypothesis? Wouldnít it be better to have ID do some actual research, present some actual positive results to the mainstream scientific community? You can only yell ďConspiracy!! Oppression!!í without evidence so many times before people stop listening.

This interaction between Zolar Czakl and StephenB is worth perusing. Throughout, Mr. Bee resists the radical notion that theory must ultimately be testable in light of data, and therefore must specify entailments. For him, such a demand is an arbitrary, ad hoc imposition of "the Darwinist Academy." The exchange culminated in the following admission: † † † † † †

3:11 amNakashima is not Asian, itís a sock puppet name, heís been banned from here many times, his handle at After The Bar Closes is dvunkannon. He part of those folks that watch us like hyenas, youíd think with all their bloviating about their ďscientific knowledgeĒ they would actually discuss science instead of watching us like hyenas. We discuss actual ideas and science here, they just discuss us. I wouldnít encourage anyone to mind their nonsenseóitís a sick internet culture thatís pervasive with them. To all of you at After the Asylum Closes, the gloves are off.

Exit Nakashima, stage left. Not followed by a bear, or even Clive in a bear suit.

I'm always a bit sad when this thread bumps back up to the top of the first page.

Post morteming this a bit, Nak's bannination clearly follows his outing of StephenB as the writer of such pleasantries as "psychotic Pharisee", and then the posting of Nak's deleted messages on AtBC. Nothing to do with the thread on which it appears, where Nak is having a mutually respectful discussion with niwrad.

Iíve only just registered on this site, but I suspect from what Iíve seen here I wonít be around too long.

You say you just registered at this site? Sure thingÖÖYou suspect rightly about not being around too long.

Mach Six, who has no connection to the other socks listed in this post, informed me backchannel that he has been silently banned and his most recent post deleted. He hadn't posted at UD for a week, other than to briefly (and accurately) point out this evening that he is unconnected to the other listed names.

Before:

After:

You're loosing it Clive, swinging blindly. We like that.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Here‚Äôs a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

You wrote as if you didnít know what the book says, and then criticized what the authors said as needing more schooling for clarity and brevity. This is, of course, impossible. You cannot criticize unless you know what youíre criticizing, or else it is not actually critical. I donít know what you know or donít know about any book at all, but this train of argument is incoherent and quite frankly rude, and my comment back to you, stating you needed more schooling was simply an illustration of that incivility, so you can see the error of employing it here. Thatís why youíre now in moderation.

Got that? That's why.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Here‚Äôs a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

In the last month, only two or three people were banned. So much for your daily bannings.

In the last year, roughly fifteen to twenty people were banned. Thatís nowhere near daily.

In many cases, these bannings were re-bannings, i.e., cases where a person had been banned, then was forgiven, then re-offended and was banned again, or cases where, once banned, the person sneaked back on under a new pseudonym and was banned under the new pseudonym. In other words, the number of *people* banned is fewer than the total number of bannings, which was very small.

The bannings have not been for disagreeing with ID, or expressing skepticism about ID. Otherwise, Francis Beckwith, Allen MacNeill and many others would have been banned. The bannings have been for offensive behavior of one kind or another. Seversky and Nakashima know why they were banned. It wasnít for offering rational arguments against irreducible complexity.

So probably one person per month has been banned from UD over the past year. This on a web site that posts thousands of comments monthly. Your case is hereby thrown out of court.

In the last month, only two or three people were banned. †So much for your daily bannings.

In the last year, roughly fifteen to twenty people were banned. †Thatís nowhere near daily.

In many cases, these bannings were re-bannings, i.e., cases where a person had been banned, then was forgiven, then re-offended and was banned again, or cases where, once banned, the person sneaked back on under a new pseudonym and was banned under the new pseudonym. †In other words, the number of *people* banned is fewer than the total number of bannings, which was very small.

The bannings have not been for disagreeing with ID, or expressing skepticism about ID. †Otherwise, Francis Beckwith, Allen MacNeill and many others would have been banned. †The bannings have been for offensive behavior of one kind or another. †Seversky and Nakashima know why they were banned. †It wasnít for offering rational arguments against irreducible complexity.

So probably one person per month has been banned from UD over the past year. †This on a web site that posts thousands of comments monthly. †Your case is hereby thrown out of court.

Anyone care to disagree with Rich on his judgement?

I've brought some sophisticated mathematical tools to bear on the question (known as "counting.")

Rich: † † † † † † † †

Quote

In the last month, only two or three people were banned. †So much for your daily bannings.

In many cases, these bannings were re-bannings, i.e., cases where a person had been banned, then was forgiven, then re-offended and was banned again, or cases where, once banned, the person sneaked back on under a new pseudonym and was banned under the new pseudonym. †In other words, the number of *people* banned is fewer than the total number of bannings

That is absolutely true. What fails in this argument is the assumption that either the original or subsequent banninations were remotely justified in light of UD's moderation policy. It is a flat fact that many were not. And it is a flat fact that many serious, effective and reasonably polite anti-ID contributors have been banned mid-thread, oftentimes as (I say because) they were pressing their points effectively. †

Moreover, anti-ID contributors have sometimes been characterized as liars, cowards, incapable of rationality, etc. by ID proponents without consequence. As Diffaxial, whose posts were serious, articulate and often pointed but never personal, I was repeatedly called a liar and a coward both by Unpleasant Blowhard and StephenB, neither of whom endured any consequences. ID-critical contributors, having just been so characterized, have sometimes been shortly thereafter banned on the flimsiest of pretexts, or for reasons that directly contradict moderation policies that BarryA has articulated. That was certainly Diffaxial's fate.

And, of course, it would not be necessary for critics to "sneak back" were UD to enforce its stated moderation standards, rather than the arbitrary, moody, and obviously biased decisions that are typical.

I will certainly gather links to several examples of each if Rich would like to attempt to defend UD, or explain them away.

ETA: it is worth noting that StephenB once apologized for questioning my (and RoB's) honesty. Here was my (Diffaxial's) response:

†

Quote

StephenB: "That means, of course, that I owe Rob and Diffaxial apologies for my half of the misunderstanding and the attendant allusions to dishonesty."

I accept that.

It is worth noting that I have made close to zero personal comments about you or anyone else in this discussion (other than ďget some therapyĒ and addressing you as ďdummyĒ). You and yours, however, have frequently characterized me as dishonest, irrational, as a liar, as lacking intellectual honesty and courage, as a coward, as displaying weakness, and so forth, with similar remarks directed to R0b. I think you embarrass yourselves with those remarks, which is why I pass over them without comment and decline to be baited into responding in kind. Fair to say that similar restraint characterizes R0bís superior contributions. I gather the purpose of these personal characterizations is to spin ďonlookerísĒ impressions of the flow of the debate, but Iíd be willing to bet they often have a very different impact than you imagine.

You offered a sort of exchange: †

Quote

if Rob or Diffaxial will acknowledge that I did not say that physical events can occur without sufficient causes, I will extend my apologies for escalating the dialogue to new levels and retract all personal comments.

I donít care about retraction of personal comments. Readers can judge for themselves the honesty (etc.) of my contributions. The exchange that interests me is that you cease repeating misleading characterizations of prior conversations to score rhetorical points. In exchange I will drop that issue, as well as questions surrounding the interpretation of your ambiguous statement vis necessary versus sufficient causes. I canít stop believing what I believe about your statement (and to say otherwise would be dishonest), but I can certainly stop commenting upon it. Iíll allow you the same slack: You neednít concede anything about your prior statements. Just agree to stop making them.

Of course, StephenB should have retracted his personal comments unconditionally, not as part of an exchange.

Diffaxial was silently banned not long after that.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Here‚Äôs a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

You wrote as if you didnít know what the book says, and then criticized what the authors said as needing more schooling for clarity and brevity. This is, of course, impossible. You cannot criticize unless you know what youíre criticizing, or else it is not actually critical. I donít know what you know or donít know about any book at all, but this train of argument is incoherent and quite frankly rude, and my comment back to you, stating you needed more schooling was simply an illustration of that incivility, so you can see the error of employing it here. Thatís why youíre now in moderation.